[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] RE: The Return Path Problem
David, Some replies below, "MWS:" Regards, Marty ************************************************************************************* Martin W. Sachs IBM T. J. Watson Research Center P. O. B. 704 Yorktown Hts, NY 10598 914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287 Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com ************************************************************************************* "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com> on 11/12/2001 04:49:42 PM To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com> cc: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, "'Miller, Robert (GXS)'" <Robert.Miller@gxs.ge.com>, "'ebXML Messaging (E-mail)'" <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] RE: The Return Path Problem Marty You said ... >>>In summary, it's the endpoint URL that gets the message through the network to the mailroom and to the correct place on the enterprises's internal network (final destination MSH). The routing elements in the messageheader then get it to the software entry point associated with the destination MSH.<<< I think you are implying that you **must not** use the Service and Action to work out the URL of the endpoint. This means that an intermediary, such as the mailroom MSH, cannot do any logical routing and that the original sender of a message must know the physical address (aka URL) of the final application that is to receive a message they want to send. MWS: That's absolutely correct. The sender gets the physical address from the CPA. In turn this means that whenever you change the internal URL for an application you have to inform everyone who might send you a message which is a huge (and my view unnecessary) overhead. MWS: That's no different from anything else in the CPA. It does discourage people from unnecessarily reconfiguring their networks. Aside from that a mailroom function could certainly include a "mail forwarding" function in which if it receives a message directed to a URL that has been changed, it substitutes the new URL before forwarding the message. This is no different than the forwarding services that the post office and phone companies already provide and have provided forever. If this is what you suggest then I don't think intermediaries can provide any value add at all from a routing perspective with the standard version of the spec. MWS: That's why some people argue that if it is worth having an intermediary, it must have something to do beyond being a passive forwarder. MWS: But the mailroom intermediary can provide the address forwarding function that I described above. I think that you should be able to (but not have to) do routing of messages based on the "PartyId, Service and Action" and map these, either using a CPA or by table/database look-up to the URL to which the message should be sent. Is there a problem with this that I don't see? MWS: There are two problems that you are not seeing. One is that PartyId, service, and action are not network functions; they only identify the software to process the message. The URL provides the routing across the network (inter- and intranet). The second problem that you are not seeing is that in a large enterprise with many systems scattered, perhaps, all over the globe, uniqueness of service and action names across the whole enterprise is something not even to be dreamed of. David -----Original Message----- From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 1:19 PM To: Burdett, David Cc: Burdett, David; 'Miller, Robert (GXS)'; 'ebXML Messaging (E-mail)' Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] RE: The Return Path Problem David, The return path works the same way. The response is sent using the requester's delivery channel which has the correct endpoint URL to get the message to where it is supposed to go. Remember: delivery channel = receive properties. In summary, it's the endpoint URL that gets the message through the network to the mailroom and to the correct place on the enterprises's internal network (final destination MSH). The routing elements in the message header then get it to the software entry point associated with the destination MSH. This approach requires no global (within the enterprise) definitions of service, action, CPAId, or anything else except the endpoint URLs. The mail room doesn't deal with the routing elements in the message header; it just passes the message on according to the URL. The mailroom or any other MSH doesn't stick anything on the end of the endpoint URL. The URL is provided in the CPP and CPA and is designed by the people who understand the configuration of the enterprise's internal network. Regards, Marty ************************************************************************************* Martin W. Sachs IBM T. J. Watson Research Center P. O. B. 704 Yorktown Hts, NY 10598 914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287 Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com ************************************************************************************* "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com> on 11/12/2001 03:54:22 PM To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com> cc: "'Miller, Robert (GXS)'" <Robert.Miller@gxs.ge.com>, "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, "'ebXML Messaging (E-mail)'" <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] RE: The Return Path Problem Marty In the examples you give, are these PartyIds or are they the URL to which a message is physically sent. I'm assuming the latter. If so, then your suggestion works for the outbound message but I doesn't as far as I can see work for *the return path* as the MSH returning the message does not know which service sent the original message and therefore what it should put on the end of the URL. For example, if the outbound message was as follows ... <MessageHeader> <From><PartyId>XYZinc</PartyId></From> <To><PartyId>ABCco</PartyId></To> <CPAId>ABC-XYZ-CPA</CPAId> <ConversationId>5678</ConversationId <Service>PriceCheck</Service> <Action>PriceCheckResponse</Action> <MessageData> <MessageId>56723</MessageId> <RefToMessageId>79465</RefToMessageId> ... </MessageData> ... </MessageHeader> ... then the only way the MSH sending the response to this message can know what to put at the end of the URL is from the CPAId and the agreement that was set up previously. This means that you need separate CPAs for, in Use Case 1, the Buyer order Management Service and the Price Query Service. I don't think this is right as why should XYZ Co care which internal service made the request for a Price Check. ... or am I missing something. David -----Original Message----- From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 10:21 AM To: Burdett, David Cc: 'Miller, Robert (GXS)'; Burdett, David; 'ebXML Messaging (E-mail)' Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] RE: The Return Path Problem The way I read Bob Miller's posting he is suggesting completely separating routing through the network from the PartyIds. He is suggesting using the endpoint URL to do the routing in the standard way. Thus a message might go to http://www.ABCco.com/CustomerService or http://www.ABCco.com/Procurement/CustomerService The domain name gets the message to the mail room and the rest of the segments of the URL get it to its final destination behind the mail room. The enterprise may design the routing however it wishes and express it in the URL. Regards, Marty **************************************************************************** ********* Martin W. Sachs IBM T. J. Watson Research Center P. O. B. 704 Yorktown Hts, NY 10598 914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287 Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com **************************************************************************** ********* "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com> on 11/12/2001 12:47:45 PM To: "'Miller, Robert (GXS)'" <Robert.Miller@gxs.ge.com>, "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, "'ebXML Messaging (E-mail)'" <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org> cc: Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] RE: The Return Path Problem Bob This effectively what I am suggesting except that I want to make it explicit. The PartyId should identify the "business" or a division of the business. In the real world we would would say,please reply to: Customer Service ABC Co 123 Main St Smallville, CA In this instance the internal department is "Customer Service" and the Party is "ABC Co". Doing it your way we would say, please reply to: Customer Service, ABC Co 123 Main St Smallville, CA Where "Customer Service, ABC Co" is the Party and department combined. Although we could do it the way you suggest and concatenate the two in the spec, this is not the best way to do it if you are using XML where the whole idea is to make the different elements of a data structure explicit. It also causes problems for the recipient. For example, following your suggestion your PartyId might look something like: <From><PartyId>urn:duns:1234567:fromservice:CustService</PartyId></From> The recipient now has a problem that they don't which part of the PartyId identifies the business and which the service unless we specify the standard in the spec. This means that they might not even be able to recognize the sending Party. I think it would be much easier if we had: <From><PartyId>urn:duns:1234567</PartyId><Service>CustService</Service></Fro m> In this case the PartyID represents the business and the "From Service" is identified separately. So really I am agreeing with you except that I think we should make the information explicit rather than buried in the PartyId. David -----Original Message----- From: Miller, Robert (GXS) [mailto:Robert.Miller@gxs.ge.com] Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 6:24 AM To: Burdett, David; 'ebXML Messaging (E-mail)' Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] RE: The Return Path Problem Good People, In the EDI world, we simply use multiple from party addresses. For example, we might use a DUNS number, in which the high order part of the number has been assigned to our compnay, and the low order portion is internally assigned. Seems to me that life gets even easier in the Internet world. We're all familiar with the EMail 'mailroom'. It's the name that follows the "@" symbol. The internal address is the part that preceeds the "@" symbol. We're also familiar with subaddesses in the WWW. The mailroom address preceeds the '/', and the subaddresses follow the first '/'/ Why isn't the obvious solution being considered? I'm confused. Cheers, Bob Miller -----Original Message----- From: Burdett, David [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 7:31 PM To: 'ebXML Messaging (E-mail)' Subject: [ebxml-msg] RE: The Return Path Problem I forgot the attachment ... ;( David <<The Return Path Problem.pdf>> > -----Original Message----- > From: Burdett, David > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 5:28 PM > To: ebXML Messaging (E-mail) > Subject: The Return Path Problem > > Folks > > Here's a PDF that describes three use cases that illustrate the return > path problem that is on the agenda for next week's F2F. Two of the use > cases are from the meeting at SAP in October which we never got round to > discussing the third is new. > > I also suggest some solutions. Note that these are suggestions and I am > open to alternatives. > > If anyone has any comments before the meeting then ... ;) > > Regards > > David > > Product Manager, xCBL, XML Standards > Solution Strategy, Commerce One > 4400 Rosewood Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588, USA > Tel/VMail: +1 (925) 520 4422; Cell: +1 (925) 216 7704 > mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com; Web: http://www.commerceone.com >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC